What does Windows 8.1 offer to desktop die-hards?

No Start menu, but there are still reasons to give 8.1 a second look.

Many parts of the Windows 8 user interface have been given some love in Windows 8.1. Some of these changes focus on the Metro side of the fence. But that doesn't mean that Microsoft forgot about desktop users—Windows 8.1 includes a number of small tweaks that should make them more comfortable.

This first is the obvious and much-trumpeted return of the Start button on the taskbar. I've written about this and don't really like it. It doesn't satisfy those users who demand nothing short of the return of the Start menu, and it doesn't really do anything to help with Windows 8's learning curve. But in conjunction with some other changes in Windows 8.1, it might still find some fans.

The desktop-oriented options are all hidden away in the taskbar's properties page. They give a fair bit of control over aspects of Windows 8's behavior, including the ability to turn off some fairly fundamental features.

Configuring those all-important settings to put the desktop (mostly) front and center.

The top left (app switcher) and top right (charms) hot corners can both be disabled. The respective features can still be used from the bottom left corners, which can't be disabled. I presume that this reduces inadvertent exposure of the switcher and charms when trying to use the close button or system menu (though I would note that even when the ghosted charms appear from mousing into the top right, you can still click the red X to close an app. It's at worst a visual distraction and not a functional issue).

Windows 8's super handy Windows-X menu (also shown by right-clicking the bottom left corner of the screen) has a couple of alterations. First, there's a setting to replace its two Command Prompt links (standard user and Administrator) with equivalent PowerShell links. For system administrators and other PowerShell users this might be great, though I'm mystified as to why it's an option. There's plenty of space on the menu; why not just include both sets of links instead of one or the other?

The menu also addresses one of Windows 8's more awkward tasks: shutting down. Back when Windows 95 was introduced, much of the world, especially the Mac-using world, laughed at the fact that you had to go to Start in order to stop the computer. Eighteen years down the line, however, and many Windows users are confused that you can't currently use Start to stop the computer. Instead, the power option has moved to a settings charm.

In Windows 8.1, the Windows-X menu has a new Shut Down menu. This lets you suspend, shut down, and reboot all without using the charms. Surprisingly, it doesn't include a log out option.

To make the Start screen a little less painful for Start menu adherents, Microsoft has a quintet of options that modify its behavior. Of particular interest are the ability to use the desktop background behind the Start screen, the ability to boot straight to the desktop, and the ability to default to All Apps view rather than tile view.

Together, these provide an experience that's quite a bit more Windows 7-like. Booting the machine goes straight to the desktop, and opening Start shows a bunch of dumb icons rather than a set of live tiles. Normally All Apps puts Modern apps ahead of desktop ones; there's also an option to reverse that and put desktop apps first.

These changes can reintroduce some of the familiarity that was lost in the transition to Windows 8. I suspect that many people will argue they don't go far enough and that nothing short of a full Xbox One-style reversal will do.

I don't, however, believe that Microsoft is going to relent on the Start screen. The new app launcher does the job well enough, and live tiles are a genuinely useful capability. The tile design is taking on an important branding role across the company (being more or less shared across phone, tablet, PC, and console), and that unification makes any backtracking very unlikely. There are plenty of third-party Start menu implementations. If the issue is truly a deal-breaker, I would suggest that you investigate one of those.

For those who are less devoted to the old menu but still wedded to the desktop and desktop apps, the new options are a decent compromise between Windows 7 and Windows 8. They put you on the desktop and make the Start screen a little bit less alien. It's a result that's all around satisfactory.

191 Reader Comments

I agree with your analysis on why MS is doing what they are doing with Windows 8. What frustrates me to no end is that these are all business/marketing/competitive reasons to make Windows 8 the way it is. What is noticeably absent from the decision making process on Windows 8 design is the idea of making a really great product with great client experience.

If the business reasons pan out, then didn't MS accomplish that? I mean, if they make a product that people buy, versus one that they don't, then by definition isn't it a better consumer experience?

None of those reasons are things that would make a consumer think "oh wow, i should buy a new windows computer". They're not thinking how great of a strategy this new gizmo is, they're thinking, where the hell is the shut down button. Microsoft can get away with it for now because they still have a practically a monopoly on computers. If there was more competition, many would've switched out to its competitors. But microsoft can only rely on that for so long. Mac's for example are increasingly becoming a workable alternative (not for me as a gamer tho).

Just because the average consumer does not understand something does not mean it is not better, and that they can not benefit from it.

This first is the obvious and much-trumpeted return of the Start button on the taskbar. I've written about this and don't really like it. It doesn't satisfy those users who demand nothing short of the return of the Start menu,

article saiz wrote:

Windows 8's super handy Windows-X menu (also shown by right-clicking the bottom left corner of the screen) has a couple of alterations.

I don't get it, if menus are bad juju and Microsoft should stick by their guns, why the support for the Windows-X menu? You say it's super handy, I think most say similar things about the start menu.

Why not be consistent and let users search all over Windows 8 for hidden basic functions as Microsoft intended?

There are about 5 or 6 great things Windows 8 offers that Windows 7 doesn't, like ridiculously fast boot-up, decent multi-monitor support, native USB 3.0, a more useful Task Manager, Refresh and Reset, and a few others.

Those things are not that great. They are not reasons to switch to what is (for some people) a more complex, worse UI. (If you're not one of those people then, great, enjoy the little trinkets, but that's all they are.)

Faster boot times: Windows 7 boots fast already. Faster is nice, sure, but we're talking about a few seconds per day when you're getting ready to start the day or whatever. Or, for me, zero seconds because I never shut down my PC in the first place.

Decent multi-monitor support: You mean the ability to put the taskbar on other monitors? I can't think of anything else that really changed (except how Metro actually broke the ability to use multiple monitors in Windows 8, but it sounds like 8.1 addresses that). We could already do that with 3rd party tools and, having tried both them and the Windows 8 method, I have to say it isn't actually useful. If you duplicate the taskbar then it's just a redundant waste of space. If you only show apps that are on each monitor on their respective taskbars then that's probably handy if you always keep the same app on the same monitor, but actually makes it harder to find things if you're like me and move things around depending on what you're doing.

Native USB3.0: Nice to not have to install a driver, sure, but hardly a reason to install an entire operating system. Installing a driver is quicker & easier than switching OS, and I'm using USB3.0 just fine on my Windows 7 PC.

Task Manager: It's still crap compared to Process Explorer. You've got to be really scraping the barrel if this even appears in your top 4 list of reasons.

Refresh and Reset: Eh, really? If the machine is that hosed it's time to reinstall the whole OS either way, IMO. Or go back to an image backup, which makes more sense (and lets you preserve more state and save more time) regardless of which OS version you use. Maybe it's useful for less technical users, though. It's not a bad thing, but not a reason to switch, either.

I take it you don't actually have multiple monitors. This feature alone basically broke Windows 7 for me; going back is a real pain now. Instead of collapsing my taskbar items down because I have too many open and not enough space on a single taskbar, or cutting them down to a single letter in the title which is almost equally annoying, Win8 lets me spread out and keep everything open and accessible simultaneously. Not to mention the smaller tweaks they made like totally restoring your desktop item layout after a monitor reconfig. It's a far better experience than Win7 and alone was worth the $15 for me.

Or to take another example, the improvements to Task Manager make a big difference to me by letting me look at that huge heatmap and see in great detail what's going on with my system if something starts bogging it down. That's a solid improvement to me.

Larger point would be that that obviously the OP didn't give a complete list of Win8 features, and the fact that you can downplay any individual feature doesn't mean that there isn't a good reason to upgrade when taken collectively.

I've tried both with multi-screen setup (3 in fact). I don't really think its that big of a deal. I originally thought I'll love that multi-taskbar setup but I ended up getting annoyed with it because it got a bit harder to switch around stuff. You may be satisfied with that for $15 but what about $100 which is the current price of a windows 8 pro software? What about $500 or $1000 which is a new laptop? Sure its not the only reason but its never in Microsoft's interest to give a shopper a reason to NOT want.

Sure, I mean,

A. everyone has different usage models. e.g. I'm not ticked at the start screen like others, partially because I pin everything to taskbar, and

B. I'd never suggest buying a new computer just to get Windows 8.

For $100 honestly it'd be a tossup. Having used it extensively at this point I'd buy it, but don't blame others if they're reticent. I do think there's an awful lot of screaming about some very small issues, though.

Question of the day: is there any way to access the win+x menu on a touch-only system? Currently you can only bring up that "power user" menu with a mouse, or a keyboard with a Windows key (which is missing from the on-screen keyboard).

Long-pressing the new start button (the equivalent of right-clicking it) will bring up that menu.

I'm installing the 8.1 Preview. When I get to the part about creating an account, 8.1 seems to require a Microsoft account. Windows 8 had an option to create and use a local account but that seems to have disappeared with 8.1

This is annoying. I see no reason why I would want Microsoft to track my email address and be able to tie it to my system - it's yet another opportunity to gather data for targeted advertising - or worse.

Of course, I can always create a fake address, but has anyone found a way to avoid entering their email address during installation?

Using Microsoft Account will give you access to some new cloud features of W8:

Unlike Google, I don't think MS uses your login account to track you for advertising which is one reason I prefer IE and other MS software over Google's. But if you are really paranoid about MS, you probably should just stop using Windows (or any other online services) all together because I think there are a lot worse things they can easily do.

I'm kind of baffled at how Microsoft could so painfully miss the point of the noise people were making about the removal of the start button.

One would think that.

I believe that SURELY they have heard and understand the complaints.

They just don't care. Without metro on computers, windows phone is dead (its pretty fucked as it is).

Without forcing developers to code for Metro, Windows on tablets is dead (go on, try using the desktop with a touch-screen I challenge you. I have multiple Win8 tablets on eval here and its ridiculous. at least with an ipad running view i can ZOOM to see widgets that are too small to click accurately with a finger)

My thing is that I've never liked lots of junk on my desktop. With Win7, all I have on my desktop is My Computer and the Recycle bin. I have the 7 or 8 most-used apps in the Task Bar, and go to the Start menu when I need anything else. I'm almost never more than two clicks away from anything I need to launch.

DISCLAIMER: I have not yet used Win8 yet, so this is all from reviews and other articles.

That being said, I don't see how I can get away from all the tiles cluttering up my desktop. And I'm not interested in live info displays on my desktop. I tried living with the widgets in Vista and got rid of them after a suitable trial period. I'm open to trying this on a phone, but I'm not feeling the love for this on the desktop. I'm open to persuasion, but so far I'm definitely not impressed…

The new Win+Q menu is a huge improvement for desktop users. Finally I can search for something without hiding everything on my screen.

But the criticism that the changes from Windows 7 to Windows 8 on the desktop are not intended to improve the customer experience is right on target. At best, when Microsoft is at its most ingenious, the changes don't hurt the experience. At worst (as with many complaints here) they worsen it.

Customers resent being asked to sacrifice for reasons of the supplier's business strategy, and that is what is going on here: Windows 8 is a straightforward attempt to leverage the Windows desktop brand in the mobile space. No problem with that; it's something MS needs to do to survive. But when it negatively impacts existing customers you shouldn't be surprised that they complain.

I think most of the resentment about the W8 interface is that gnawing feeling that MS has chosen to deliberately *sacrifice* the needs of the desktop user in order to essentially place advertisements for MS tablets and phones.

The idea that my user experience is being sacrificed to meet the needs of a division of the company of which I have neither need nor interest irks me to no end.

I don't get all the whining about the Start button. The only time I use the Start button is to search, but with Windows 8, you can do that even faster. Just give me access to the Search and Run hotkeys I'd be all set, just like windows 7.

I'm glad some people like the tiles. But not everyone does. Choice is good. Let me give you an example of where your model fails. You visit a friend (or use your partner's computer). You're looking for a word processor. You type in "office", nothing comes up. You type in "word", nothing comes up. You can sit there all day "guessing", or traverse 500 tiles that are randomly scattered all over the screen, or use hierarchical menus to narrow down quickly. I'll let you guess which way is easiest to find that your partner had "works" installed.

From what i'm hearing and seeing, 8.1 sounds like an improvement. Peter's suggestion of using a 3rd party start menu (if that floats your boat) is wise. I've put a few friends up to Windows 8, but always with a start menu

If search is being done correctly, you type in Office and it shows up, you type in Word and it comes up. I don't think Windows does this, but since search is being heavily integrated in, you'd hope that's where they are going.

The idea here of course being that because apps are searchable, you can search for apps based on what they do, not just what they are called. That's a much more efficient way of doing things.

Plus, when you sit down on a friend's computer and want to call up a word processor, you already know what it's called: Word.

Ugh, I just bought/installed Windows 8 because I need to run some accounting software.

I cannot believe Microsoft thought it was a good idea to hide important functionality by having to click in the corners or sides of the screen with NO on-screen indication that doing so would do anything.

Finally figured out what the corners do [thanks Google], and then found a start menu 'installer' so it would login to a mostly classic Windows UI so I would only be slightly frustrated at the UI.

Then I go 'hey, I have a Microsoft keyboard and mouse, better install the MS drivers for them'. Unfortunately, I have a MS 7000 wireless keyboard [which also came with a righty-only mouse, so I tossed it] and a Intellimouse Optical mouse. Except the MS 7000 keyboard/mouse configuration app doesn't work with the Intellimouse Optical, AND it helpfully changes the Control Panels mouse configuration tab to ONLY launch the MS 7000 configuration app, so I can't configure the mouse for left-handed operation.

Microsoft might focus-group the hell out of everything, but they really don't seem to think about how everything goes together. Except they also must have either never tested the 'final' Win8 UI with anybody not already trained in how the UI works, or just ignored the results.

And they still haven't figured out how to install the OS and updates without requiring multiple reboots.

I dont know why people atuck at start button, or where the shutdown button is, every keyboard has a sleep button use ir, use the search its very much faster instead if satrting atart, finding software under accesories for example just search first two letters, much faster... Windows 8 is a good software and it works...

That's the funny thing about Windows 8, every time I sit down at the desktop to use it, I feel like I have the wrong tool (desktop) for the job (navigating Windows). It really feels that I should be navigating via touch on tablet rather than mice and keyboards. For that experience, one can surmise that I should change the form factor I want to better utilize Windows 8, or that I should change my OS if I want to better utilize my desktop.

Strange, I don't feel that way. So like, you click the start screen activator, click your app, sit at your desktop and use it, as opposed to click the start menu button, click your app, sit at your desktop and use it, and it feels like you have the wrong device? Of course if you use metro apps they will feel tabletish, but they are supposed to and I wouldn't think someone who hated them would have a reason to use them..

By design, you can't do everything in desktop, you have to pop back into metro to run certain apps and to change certain settings. Furthermore on Windows 8 desktop you still have charms and corner hovers to deal with that maybe touch friendly, but certainly are not mouse and keyboard friendly. Sure, I can (and do) use hot keys to get to these functions, but that has been a fallback due to the poor mouse experience.

There are ways to "get around" most every poor UI experience in Windows 8. My larger point is that we shouldn't have to "get around" these issues to begin with.

Like what? I only go into metro to start an app, and because I like metro apps on my desktop. Anyways, my larger point is that not everyone considers it something to 'get around', I enjoy the metro features, and don't see how they get in my way. I use the corners all the time on my desktop, I do not try to 'get around' them, I use the charms bar to disable/enable my second monitor, access the control panel and other things. When I first got the OS I hit it accidently a few times, now much less so. I'm thinking if I can use it on my desktop without issue, then most anyone can. Like if you don't know how to drive a car, but someone else does, it probably means you should learn instead of saying cars suck.

Is it better for me to invest more efforts in "learning to drive" Windows 8, or perhaps my time is better spent picking something that I can already drive? If I can easily drive 6 of 7 cars, then maybe the fault lies with the design of that seventh car, rather than with the driver.

I think most of the resentment about the W8 interface is that gnawing feeling that MS has chosen to deliberately *sacrifice* the needs of the desktop user in order to essentially place advertisements for MS tablets and phones.

The idea that my user experience is being sacrificed to meet the needs of a division of the company of which I have neither need nor interest irks me to no end.

Incompetence I could take, but this feels like sabotage.

This. Microsoft deliberately ruined a great traditional desktop and laptop OS to try to ram an unwanted mobile OS down our throats. For years people wisely ignored Windows Phone in favor of iOS and Android. With Windows 8, Microsoft has replaced the start menu with a big, tacky, in-your-face advertisement for Windows Phone that can't be easily ignored.

It's bad enough that these days when people ask me what kind of computer to get for home use, I just tell them to get a Mac. And I'm not normally much of an Apple person at all.

To all of you relentless, whining Windows 8 haters: it seems to me that you could solve all your problems and make your lives complete by simply getting a Mac, Linux, or Chromebook.

That is the long-term plan.

Quote:

Or, by sticking with your XP dinosaur or Windows 7 (which is still widely available, by the way).

That is the short-term plan.

Quote:

And yet, you devote hours and hours to pissing and moaning about the tiniest thing you dislike in Windows 8. What's your point? At the shoe store, do you buy the least comfortable shoes to give yourself something to bitch about for the next year? Marry someone you hate? I'm mystified.

Software lock-in isn't quite as bad as it used to be, but wholesale platform switches are rarely pleasant to contemplate. Especially if, and I can't emphasize this enough in my case, the whole reason I'm running Windows in the first place is because I hate Mac OS with a burning passion and haven't been able to get 100% of my software working on Linux. So a platform switch isn't a one-way ticket to happyland, although it will still certainly be an improvement if this really is the future of Windows.

Regarding the shoe analogy, if there is a way to tell the shoe vendor how they could make a more comfortable shoe (which I have, via my company's Premier account), and warn others that they might not like this new shoe even though they've always bought shoes from this vendor before, I do. You call it pissing and moaning, I call it warning unsuspecting customers. Have we run this analogy into the ground yet? Hey, at least it's not a car analogy.

Basically we have until Win7 extended support expires to complete a significant platform migration (not necessarily my company, just the "haters" as you call them). Convincing Microsoft to improve Windows could actually still happen in that timeframe. It's been done before. So the bitching channel is open until we're completely off Windows. Deal with it.

FWIW, it has very little to do with the Start Menu itself in my case. It's the constant interface-switching. If Windows RT had launched with Metro versions of all the apps I need, I'd be happy with it. But an OS with two interfaces, one of which I never use and which constantly jumps in my way when I'm trying to do something else, is not what I want.

A third-party fix may serve to extend the time we have to get off Windows, but it's very doubtful it will work indefinitely. I am walking, not running, for the exits.

The other thing we never got was the promised version of Windows 8 with no shell, which then allows a vendor to build their own. (Especially useful for kiosks and point-of-sale.)

..."Windows 8's super handy Windows-X menu (also shown by right-clicking the bottom left corner of the screen) has a couple of alterations. "

That's where I stopped reading. At this stage I lost track of which menu or charms bar or whatever I get to by right/left/middle clicking or pointing at which corner (or was I supposed to stand on my head and move the mouse cursor in a circle while chanting to invoke the secret charm?).

Seriously Microsoft.. Why throw out 25 years of user interface research and guidelines?

They put you on the desktop and make the Start screen a little bit less alien. It's a result that's all around satisfactory

Says the guy who thought the Start screen in Windows 8 was *also* satisfactory.Clearly, the person who never had a problem in the first place is just the right person to judge the fix to be satisfactory.

It doesn't fix my pet peeve, which is, funnily enough, a word that you trumpeted: unification.The start menu gave me unification: I could use the same environment to *launch* applications and to work in.

Now, in the name of "unification", the two have been violently separated. Visually, this is jarring (I guess preserving the Desktop background helps with this marginally, but it's still a jarring context switch). But functionally, it is also completely disruptive, because there can no longer be any interaction between the desktop world and the Start <whatever>. I used to be able to drag icons between start menu, desktop and taskbar. Good luck doing that from the start screen. I used to be able to open the start menu to find an application, or type in the search bar, while watching a movie. Good luck watching your movie from the start screen. I used to be able to right click the shortcuts in the start menu, to get the same context menu that I get on *all* shortcuts in Windows.

I can't do any that. Because the start menu has been, wait for it, unified.The start menu has been "unified", meaning that it is no longer part of the environment that people actually use the most on their Windows PCs.

I can't speak for everyone (because there are a lot of people voicing different degrees of dissatisfaction with the start screen and with Metro), but for me, what I want is "unification". I don't care about the start menu. I don't care if it is a menu or a window or a telepathic link. I just want it unified with the desktop environment.

Metro doesn't work for large multi-screen desktops because of some pretty stupid decisions Microsoft made, and which they are not reversing. If you're using Windows 8 on a small screen laptop, where you're already used to having most apps full screen, those decisions aren't that great, but they're not so bad either. On a large multi-screen desktop however, they totally suck.

Say I'm in explorer, navigating a folder in an SD card. I double click on a picture. By default, I go into the Metro picture viewer. I was using a 600x400 window in one screen, and something pops up in 1920x1200 on the other screen. Besides that, in the Metro picture viewer I can't view other pictures from that folder, because they are not in my library, and thus Metro apps don't have permission to look around. I have to close it, and reopen it, every goddamn time. Same for video, etc. Sure, I can go to the trouble of choosing the desktop defaults for everything, but this is a terrible experience out of the box. And after I do that, my defaults are the desktop defaults, and if a Metro app wants to open a picture, the desktop will popup instead.

Say I'm in the desktop, with desktop Outlook. I click on an email link. Where does it open by default? On Metro IE, fullscreen. I sometimes hook up my laptop with my TV. I have Metro setup for that. It's perfect really, full-screen, large buttons, nice big typography. Metro IE is by far the best browser for that. I want Metro Mail to open links in Metro IE. I don't want desktop Outlook to open links in Metro IE. IE must also be the default browser for this to happen, despite me mostly using desktop Chrome. If I set up Chrome as the default, I completely lose access to Metro IE. But with IE by default, all links, open in Metro IE, regardless of where I come from. I open a desktop app, it asks me to download an update, and I end up in Metro IE with a full-screen download; once it ends, I have to go back to explorer in the desktop if I want to launch it.

Why? Who came up with this clusterfuck of constantly switching between these two environments that don't work well together and thought it was a good idea? All this in the name of shoving the Windows Store on all of us. The results of which, are an average of 2 or 3 free app downloads per Windows 8 license sold. Great move, Microsoft.

I agree. I always thought that Metro and the new Win8 UI was fine on some type of device and uses but that what MS really failed to do correctly was to make the two universe coexist properly.

What's so annoying to me is that there would have been a very elegant solution: have the OS behave differently in desktop and touch mode (different defaul apps, different way to view the same controls and information) and provide easy way to switch between the two.

It's already almost done: search exists outside of Metro, so do the control panel, etc.

the start menu and start screen might not exactly be two different view of the same data, after all, the start menu is a control system only, which includes nice dynamic things like MRU list and hierarchical ordering while the start screen is a mixed control/information display system, but they both take the important element from the same source: the merged "start menu" folders.

I don't understand why the use of the two interfaces needs to be intermingled.

I'm quite interested in a hybrid desktop/touch OS. I

just don't want to use a touch interface with a keyboard/mouse and I don't want (obviously) to have to use desktop elements on a touchscreen.

Touch interfaces are convenient in tablets and great in "on-the-go" use case scenarios, when you don't have a desk etc, but they main thing is that they're geared towards media consumption and very simple content creation eg. email. The downside is that they represent a very significant compromise in productivity.

Desktop interface provide maximum productivity but have specific demands which make them unsuitable for "on-the-go" use and limit portability.

Merging the two forces compromises on both. That doesn't mean that you can't have both in the same OS as long as you have clean switching between them.

Windows 8 is predicated on every device from phone to desktop, laptops and tablets all having the same interface - and they decided on a touch screen as that universal interface. I sit far enough back from my multi monitor desktop setup that a touch screen is just not feasible. My older laptop does not have a touch screen. I do not currently use a tablet. My phone is the only current device with touch screen. What is the advantage to a touch centric OS on a desk top to me?

The start button has been a convenient and simple way to access certain things such as control panel, devices and command line - as well as shut down, log off and change users with just a click. I do not use it as a menu to launch programs - I have something entirely different for that - small colorful icons on a desktop (some that open lists such as a menu for a group of similar programs) And in the background, a wallpaper that doubles as an esthetic picture when I am not actively doing something on the computer. Where is that convenience (or esthetics) in 8? So far it appears that 8.1 may address that convenient place to get to some these features that MS seems to have forgotten a user might want to get to.

I am sure that Win8 does have a way to get to these features, but is that way actually better? or just different? I am not going to bother to learn an entirely new operating system that is not obviously better than my current OS just to find out. Win8 may be better. But I am not willing to spend a pile of cash just to spend the time and effort to find out based on their marketing presentation and 'Metro Modern Art Minimalist' desk top that looks like it might work fine - on a phone.

Windows 8 is broken for many ordinary home users (i.e. not your typical Ars Readers) and many business users without the traditional Start Menu system.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of Start Menu vs. Start Screen, ditching the Start Menu entirely and then bringing it back in a half-assed fashion no-one asked for is a colossal mistake. If you're gonna bring the Start Menu back, make it like... stating the obvious here... a proper Start Menu and not some bastardised half-Start Menu half Start Screen thing.

A setting for a Microsoft included-as-standard Traditional Start Menu that can be turned on or off as the user prefers would solve the issue for all use cases. People who love the Start Screen wouldn't have to use it, people who love the Start Menu could have it back.

It's so blindingly obvious one wonders what hell Microsoft are thinking (to repeat myself) bringing back the Start Menu in a half-assed fashion NO-ONE will be happy with.

That's the funny thing about Windows 8, every time I sit down at the desktop to use it, I feel like I have the wrong tool (desktop) for the job (navigating Windows). It really feels that I should be navigating via touch on tablet rather than mice and keyboards. For that experience, one can surmise that I should change the form factor I want to better utilize Windows 8, or that I should change my OS if I want to better utilize my desktop.

Strange, I don't feel that way. So like, you click the start screen activator, click your app, sit at your desktop and use it, as opposed to click the start menu button, click your app, sit at your desktop and use it, and it feels like you have the wrong device? Of course if you use metro apps they will feel tabletish, but they are supposed to and I wouldn't think someone who hated them would have a reason to use them..

By design, you can't do everything in desktop, you have to pop back into metro to run certain apps and to change certain settings. Furthermore on Windows 8 desktop you still have charms and corner hovers to deal with that maybe touch friendly, but certainly are not mouse and keyboard friendly. Sure, I can (and do) use hot keys to get to these functions, but that has been a fallback due to the poor mouse experience.

There are ways to "get around" most every poor UI experience in Windows 8. My larger point is that we shouldn't have to "get around" these issues to begin with.

Like what? I only go into metro to start an app, and because I like metro apps on my desktop. Anyways, my larger point is that not everyone considers it something to 'get around', I enjoy the metro features, and don't see how they get in my way. I use the corners all the time on my desktop, I do not try to 'get around' them, I use the charms bar to disable/enable my second monitor, access the control panel and other things. When I first got the OS I hit it accidently a few times, now much less so. I'm thinking if I can use it on my desktop without issue, then most anyone can. Like if you don't know how to drive a car, but someone else does, it probably means you should learn instead of saying cars suck.

Is it better for me to invest more efforts in "learning to drive" Windows 8, or perhaps my time is better spent picking something that I can already drive? If I can easily drive 6 of 7 cars, then maybe the fault lies with the design of that seventh car, rather than with the driver.

Your analogy doesn't state anything about other drivers (ie: me) being perfectly happy and comfortable with the design of the seventh car, even going so far as to prefer it's perceived flaws as improvements. Just because you don't like something, doesn't mean it's not good for other people.

Looking forward to some of these updates, but the start screen still really needs help. I can live with the loss of the start menu, but only if the start screen is usable. Anyone who purchases from gog.com will quickly realize the issue. Suddenly 7 identical looking "Graphic Mode Setup" icons are pinned to nowhere in particular. Good luck figuring out which one goes where. Obviously the solution is to unpin them & only go to the all apps view, but then you're left scrolling through 20 pages of tiles that can't be collapsed into the categories looking for the right one. God help you if you try to search for them.

The start menu could be helpful if you could default the categories in all apps to be collapsed & only expand the one you want to look in. It would also help to be able to show relations between icons in the pinned start screen beyond making a new column for everything & trying to keep related icons next to each other. As is, it's a mess that's typically just avoided.

I can't say I really care for the "updates" mentioned in this article and, somehow, this ability to completely bypass the new Windows UI.

Coming from OS X, I've never been entirely at ease with the old Start menu : in fact, I don't really see how it is, to some, more productivity-focused that the new Start screen. For example, I've always found it a clumsy way to navigate through my installed apps, less I littered the Taskbar or the Start menu with icons - to no real use, as those two didn't really cover the same purpose as OS X's Dock.

Now that I've had time to familiarize myself with Windows 8, I've come to like this new interface ; more, in fact, than OS X's own counterparts (Launchpad and spotlight).For once, I, personally, think that full-screen search is a delight : in some situations, having to peruse through a long list of items was, both in spotlight and Windows 7, a horrible experience - especially if wanted a quick preview of the file. In my case, I've come to think that Microsoft made, for me, that experience as painless as possible.

Now, I'm not saying that the Windows UI is perfect : in many cases, it appeared to me confusing. For example, app-switching in Windows has never been, for me, a really pleasant experience, compared to OS X's own Mission Control and, before that, Exposé. Anyhow, Microsoft managed to make that experience more confusing, with two dedicated app-switchers, and the confusing notion that the Desktop should be treated like an app.

In my case, the only issue adressed by the x.1 update is the ability to customize the Start screen. I'm still waiting for it to be fully customizable (I'd really like to be able to treat the Start screen as a board, where I would "pin" my tiles any way I want), a better app-switcher, better integration between Windows UI and the Desktop, and a cleverer Windows Explorer (as it is, the new ribbon's only purpose has been to show me how lightweight the Explorer was). But I guess it is a bit too early for making my wishlist to Santa...

I'm kind of baffled why people still trust Microsoft given Windows 8, Surface, and the Xbox One.

I don't think everyone is trusting of M$. I already made the decision not to buy the Xbone. I may have upgraded to Windows 7, but that wasn't an immediate thing, but a highly delayed action--and I'll skip 8.anything as it is for children and tablets.

Much like the last one, this article is so unnecessarily belligerent. It's shameful to read.

"The menu also addresses one of Windows 8's more awkward tasks: shutting down. Back when Windows 95 was introduced, much of the world, especially the Mac-using world, laughed at the fact that you had to go to Start in order to stop the computer. Eighteen years down the line, however, and many Windows users are confused that you can't currently use Start to stop the computer."

Start hasn't been on the start menu for 5 years. This is a petty criticism unworthy of the space it takes.

"Together, these provide an experience that's quite a bit more Windows 7-like. Booting the machine goes straight to the desktop, and opening Start shows a bunch of dumb icons rather than a set of live tiles. Normally All Apps puts Modern apps ahead of desktop ones; there's also an option to reverse that and put desktop apps first."

Yes, having a bunch of moving widgets is exactly what everyone wants. That's why the geocities style of web-design remained dominant throughout the last decade.

"These changes can reintroduce some of the familiarity that was lost in the transition to Windows 8. I suspect that many people will argue they don't go far enough and that nothing short of a full Xbox One-style reversal will do."Why worry about what people will argue? Statements like this initiate flamewars before they begin.

This article is the kind of incredibly asinine dreck that I would expect from the Gawker network.

To all of you relentless, whining Windows 8 haters: it seems to me that you could solve all your problems and make your lives complete by simply getting a Mac, Linux, or Chromebook. Or, by sticking with your XP dinosaur or Windows 7 (which is still widely available, by the way). And yet, you devote hours and hours to pissing and moaning about the tiniest thing you dislike in Windows 8. What's your point? At the shoe store, do you buy the least comfortable shoes to give yourself something to bitch about for the next year? Marry someone you hate? I'm mystified.

To all of you relentless, whining Windows 8 haters: it seems to me that you could solve all your problems and make your lives complete by simply getting a Mac, Linux, or Chromebook. Or, sticking with your XP dinosaur or Windows 7 (which is still widely available, by the way). And yet, you devote hours and hours to pissing and moaning about the tiniest thing you dislike in Windows 8. What's your point? At the shoe store, do you buy the least comfortable shoes to give yourself something to bitch about for the next year? Marry someone you hate? I'm mystified.

Rude and dismissive comments like yours don't help the problem or actually offer any way to fix the situation. Furthermore, Windows XP is already deprecated and some applications already don't work with it. Soon, Windows 7 will be in the same boat when Windows 9 comes out.

The things people don't like with Win8 aren't going to disappear with Windows 9... they'll just get worse, unless we make a big enough stink to let Microsoft know what the real problem is. Personally, I think they DO know, but only a strategy of NOT using or buying Metro apps will get MS's attention.